Dg3.pdf

Loading ...
Global Do...
News & Politics
ESSLLI 2000: Dependency Grammar 3 - Solutions 1
1. Coordination
The challenge: A coordination has an internal structure which is hard to describe in
dependency terms.
(1) 
Ann, Betty and Chloe had supper.
What is the head of Ann, Betty and Chloe?
□  It can't be any of the nouns, because none has any priority over the others; and we
can't have all three because that's fundamentally incompatible with dependency
theory.
□
 It can't be and because this can't carry the subject dependency - the subject must
be a noun, not a conjunction.
Solution: a coordination is a word string. (Hudson, Word Grammar, English Word
Grammar) I.e. it is a continuous string of words held together by principles other than
dependency.  They're not only use in coordination - also as the complement of SAY:
(2) He said, "Hello, one, two, three, testing, testing, testing."
(3) He said, "Bonjour! Kommen Sie herein!"
I.e. Notice that neither of these strings is a phrase, in the sense of a string of words
held together by dependencies. Similarly in coordination: a coordination is a word
string which is held together by the special rules of coordination:
(4) 
{[word*]* conjunction [word*]}, where * = 1 or more and […] is a conjunct.
Of course, all the words (except the conjunction) must also have ordinary dependency
relations:
{ [Ann],    [Betty] and  [Chloe]}  had   supper .
s
o
Rule (4) doesn't mention dependency relations, so it is accompanied by the
Dependency In Coordination Principle:
(5) 
The conjuncts of a coordination must share the same dependencies to words
outside the coordination.
One consequence of this treatment of coordination is that a conjunct need not be a
phrase.
(6) 
I drink {[coffee at my desk at 11] and [tea in the sitting room at 4.]}
I    d rink   { [c offee at   m y   desk at   11] and [tea in   the   s itting room at   4.]}
Nor need the shared dependencies all involve the same external word (Oehhrle?):
(7)
I went to {[London on Tuesday] and [Birmingham on Wednesday]}.
I      w ent    to {[London on   T ues day] and [Birm ingham  on   W ednes day]} .
Problem:
(8) Gestern {[kaufte Paul ein Auto] und [fuhr es nach Hause]}.
Yesterday  bought Paul a car and drove it to home.
How can Paul be shared by the second conjunct if it is inside the first conjunct?
2. That-clauses
The problem: that must be the head of its clause (because it is the word selected), but
it is optional. How can this simple fact be stated without referring to 'clause' (or CP)?
(9) 
I know (that) you are tired.
I    know    that    you     are     tired.
I    know     you    are     tired.
o
o
How can we generalise across that and a tensed verb (e.g. are) as the complement of
every verb which allows either?
Solution: recognise a new relationship, 'proxy', whose argument is a tensed verb and
whose value is either a that on which the verb depends or that verb itself. (Rosta,
"Dependency and grammatical relations", "English Syntax and Word Grammar
Theory") Then any verb which selects a that-clause can select 'the proxy of a tensed
verb'.
I    know    that    you     are     tired.
I    know     you    are     tired.
o
o
proxy
py
The proxy relationship can also be used for Pied Piping:
(10) 
I wonder who he came with.
(11) 
I wonder with whom he came. (with is 'pied-piped' with whom to the front of
its clause).
A verb such as WONDER selects the proxy of a wh-word, which is either the wh-
word itself or a preposition on which it depends.
I    w onder   w ho   he   c am e   w ith .
 I      w onder    w ith   w hom    he    c am e.
o
py
py
(These diagrams are incomplete; they need the 'visitor' dependencies - to be explained
tomorrow.)
3. Gerunds
The problem: a gerund is a verb whose dependents are clearly those of a verb, not
those of a noun; and yet, as a dependent, it is equally clearly a noun. I.e. it looks like a
verb heading a noun phrase (contrary to endocentricity), or the head of a clause which
is also the whole of a noun phrase (contrary to dependency theory).
(12) We were worried about not having attended the lectures regularly.
Solution: a gerund is in fact both a noun and a verb at the same time, but its
inflectional class prevents it from being used as a dependent verb, while its sub-
classification prevents it from having the dependents of a common noun (Hudson,
Gerunds = http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/gerunds.htm; similarly Malouf,
Mixed Categories):
W e     w ere     w orr ied      ab ou t     no t   havin g    at ten ded   the    lec tures     r egu lar ly .
H A VE :g e ru n d
gerun d    partic ip le . ... . H A VE
verb
no un
c o m m on .. . ..
4. DP
The problem: How can we generalise across all the syntactic patterns called 'DP' (or
NP), headed in the surface by: determiner, common noun, proper noun or pronoun?
(13) He likes the girl / girls / Jane / you.
These seem to have no head in common, and yet they all have precisely the same
distribution.
Solution: (as with gerunds) fix the classification so that all four head-types do belong
to the same word class, namely Noun. This involves classifying determiners as
pronouns (not the other way round!), and pronouns as nouns. (Hudson, "Grammar
Without Functional Categories")
T H E                Y O U               GIR L               J A N E
pronoun              c omm on      proper
noun
the    girl     you            girls            Jane
c